Foodies: Are you a classicist? an elitist?

[hsm]

A simple test which, if you can pass it, should set those strangers right.  I'm going to act like an economist to set up the question:

Assume two foodstuffs of identical quality that could be used interchangeably as an ingredient in a dish.  One of them is a private-label product priced below most nationally advertised brands and available at an ordinary supermarket.  The other is produced by a manufacturer whose brand has a fashionable cachet and hence carries with it a price premium.

Which product do you buy?

←

That's a trick question, right?

[Chris Amirault]

And mizducky: I don't think at all that foodieism is a symtom of the idle leisure class. Go to nearly any culture in any socioeconomic bracket and you will find people who are passionate about their food and could be properly classified as foodies.

←

Ellen can certainly speak for herself, but this misrepresents her point, at least in my reading. Here's the key phrase:

[F]oodieism is by its very nature "classist/elitist" regardless of the apparent class associations of the food enthused over, because only people of some financial means can afford to treat food -- whether highbrow or lowbrow food -- as a recreational hobby, whereas poor people, no matter how much they may enjoy food, must treat it as the survival necessity it really is.

←

I think she was simply pointing out the fact that many people -- the majority of humans on earth, probably -- haven't the means to make judgments about food quality, broadly defined, their primary criterion in deciding what to eat. It's not a comment about the idle leisure class; it's a fact about global food consumption, which for many is for sustenance, not pleasure.

As for the question at hand, I like tejon's ""strangely obsessed."

[Philanthrophobe]

Approaching Lady T's non-conundrum from another angle:

I believe that if you search far enough back on this site, you may find a post in which I referred to myself as a "democratic elitist."  By which I mean that I believe some things are better than others, but the standard is not necessarily tied to some arbitrary factor like price or social class.

In the context of what other posters have said here:  The relationship between price and quality is nonlinear.  Depending on what it is you seek, you may find that the best quality item may actually cost less than other items in its class.

←

Amen.

[chow guy]

I really get frustrated that nowadays you are a snob or an elitist if you don't want to eat fast food slop. My food doesn't come from the most expensive grocery stores, nor do I regularly eat at five star joints. I do not buy hugely expensive wine. All I ask is that what I eat tastes good, is prepared well, and is a reasonable value. Again, reasonable value is all relative. I see Uchi as being a reasonable value for the kind of food that you get. On the other hand, I do not see PF Changs as being a a reasonable value. I don't think this makes me a snob or an elitist or a classist. I think it just makes me someone who sees that life on this planet is too damn short to eat bad food.

←

I also take flack from friends who think I'm being a snob for not wanting to go with them to overpriced chains. I'd much rather eat at a taqueria or whole in the wall, mom and pop place, than pay the price these chains charge for such crap. I will splurge big bucks at a place like Gary Danko or Gramercy Tavern where the bang is well worth the bucks and there is no sense of classism, just enjoyment of great food without pretence. On the other hand, when it comes to ulltra chic places that use chemistry sets, instead of sauce pans in their kitchens, I'm not impressed. I don't need to wrap my mind around food, I need to wrap my mouth around it. Long live "classicism" with creative flair!

[andiesenji]

I agree with most of what you say, chow guy. However there are some "overpriced" chains that do have certain "stores" that do a better job than others.

In recent years, I have been to five Ruth's Chris steak houses in soCal. Two, the one in Woodland Hills, and the one in Irvine, have served exceptional meals. The others were, in my opinion, just so-so, however at one time the Beverly Hills location served a fine meal.

Some places are great for special occasions and some places are just plain fun, especially for families.

Some of the great places of the past, now long gone, served truly great food and weren't really all that expensive. Scandia, once a Hollywood fixture, where the waiters (and they were serious about being waiters, all male, all older than the norm) wore long white aprons high on their chests as one used to see French waiters in old movies, served wonderful food and at very reasonable prices.

They served some lobster dishes that I have never found equaled elsewhere.

The first time I went there for dinner was after seeing How The West Was Won at the Cinerama dome in 1962.

I don't mind the occasional "experimental" food as an appetiser or whatever they call it now, but I do like real food for my meal.

I like funky places too.

There used to be a place in Las Vegas called the Green Shack and it was really a shack. I think it had been there since the '30s when Boulder/Hoover dam was being built. It closed several years ago but whenever I went there for a dog show, my friends and I always made a point of having at least one meal there. The fried chicken was extraordinary. They also served wonderful biscuits and a bread pudding that was out of this world.

The floor was uneven, the walls had interesting cracks and there were historical photos stuck everywhere. The mayor and most of the city council as well as a lot of police officers were regular customers as were some of the older Las Vegas characters, all now long gone.

I remember when El Pollo Loco was one walk-up stand on Alvarado in L.A. and whenever I had to drive into L.A. from the valley, where I lived at the time, I would go and stand in line for a bag of the chicken and a stack of the tortillas an a cup of the coarsly chopped fresh salsa. (I don't like the salsa they have now, it is nothing like the original. It was cheap and very, very good.) I think it has lost something in the mass merchandising but still turns out a fairly tasty chicken.

I also loved a barbecue stand that I think is still on Victory Blvd., in Glendale, just south of the Burbank/Glendale city limits and has been there for many, many years.

People are drawn into the place by the aroma drifting into the street and many times I saw someone make a U-turn after driving by and getting a noseful of the wonderful smells. I haven't been over that way for years but when I lived on Riverside Drive, back in the 60s, it was a frequent stop. Again, the stuff was inexpensive but terrific.

Edited May 7, 2006 by andiesenji (log)

[Lady T]

A simple test which, if you can pass it, should set those strangers right.   I'm going to act like an economist to set up the question:

Assume two foodstuffs of identical quality that could be used interchangeably as an ingredient in a dish.  One of them is a private-label product priced below most nationally advertised brands and available at an ordinary supermarket.  The other is produced by a manufacturer whose brand has a fashionable cachet and hence carries with it a price premium.

Which product do you buy?

←

Fairly asked -- and you see it correctly as a non-conundrum. To an economist's question, an economist's answer:

Three words at the beginning of your question define my entire answer: if the foodstuffs are truly "of identical quality," then I absolutely will use the lower-priced private-label product.

I want *value,* not defined simply by price but starting with the delicious quality this purchase will bring to my menu in my home. If I can make my choice with that purchase to obtain equal quality at a better price (for me) from local/private labels, I gain -- and I influence, infinitesimally, the entire retail chain working back from me and my purchases at the register. I have set up, in a very small way, the beginnings of a competition for my business based on *value,* -- but with quality as a defining factor, not price or prestige.

Does this help to define my response?

(Edited for greater clarity.)

Edited May 8, 2006 by Lady T (log)

[MarketStEl]

A simple test which, if you can pass it, should set those strangers right.  I'm going to act like an economist to set up the question:

Assume two foodstuffs of identical quality that could be used interchangeably as an ingredient in a dish.  One of them is a private-label product priced below most nationally advertised brands and available at an ordinary supermarket.  The other is produced by a manufacturer whose brand has a fashionable cachet and hence carries with it a price premium.

Which product do you buy?

←

Fairly asked -- and you see it correctly as a non-conundrum. To an economist's question, an economist's answer:

Three words at the beginning of your question define my entire answer: if the foodstuffs are truly "of identical quality," then I absolutely will use the lower-priced private-label product.

I want *value,* not defined simply by price but starting with the delicious quality this purchase will bring to my menu in my home. If I can make my choice with that purchase to obtain equal quality at a better price (for me) from local/private labels, I gain -- and I influence, infinitesimally, the entire retail chain working back from me and my purchases at the register. I have set up, in a very small way, the beginnings of a competition for my business based on *value,* -- but with quality as a defining factor, not price or prestige.

Does this help to define my response?

(Edited for greater clarity.)

←

Very much so, and it's an excellent answer. Just how good it is will be shown by my starting down the slippery slope by changing one word in my original question:

Replace "identical" with "comparable."

Now we get into the area where taste--that subjective value that you correctly identify as the "controlling variable" in the decision-making process--must come into play.

What one person may accept as comparable may strike another as unacceptable.

I'll use cream cheese as an example because it's a product I know well and one where I can identify the differences among brands.

Generally speaking, Philadelphia Brand is the "gold standard" for the category. I can tell the difference between it and most store brands in both taste (many store brands are noticeably sweeter and have less of a cream flavor; a few are way too salty) and consistency (most other brands are also firmer in their refrigerated, unsoftened state).

But given what I use cream cheese for--mainly as a snack--the differences, noticeable though they are, are not so great as to prevent me from purchasing the store brand (unless it's one of those too-salty ones) when it is less expensive. Perhaps if I made lots of cheesecake, the difference would be significant enough for me to insist on "Philly" all the time.

The point where this sort of discrimination ceases to be a legitimate quality distinction and starts being one based on snobbery, status-flaunting or ostentation is even harder to fix. I would personally draw the line at insisting on bottled spring water flown halfway around the world when running your municipal supply through a Brita filter will produce something that tastes as good at far lower cost to you and the environment. (To show how variable this is, I would not recoil at someone who buys spring water from Maine in the Northeast, though it would be good if that person could get spring water from as close to where he or she lives as possible--for instance, Pocono Springs in this region.) You may not--and I recall that some people indeed have not in similar areas involving really basic foodstuffs like salt in other discussions here on eG.

[Angela Alaimo]

I would put myself in the d) category and go with "Food Enthusiast".

[chow guy]

I agree with most of what you say, chow guy.  However there are some "overpriced" chains that do have certain "stores" that do a better job than others.

In recent years, I have been to five Ruth's Chris steak houses in soCal.  Two, the one in Woodland Hills, and the one in Irvine, have served exceptional meals.  The others were, in my opinion, just so-so, however at one time the Beverly Hills location served a fine meal. 

Some places are great for special occasions and some places are just plain fun, especially for families. 

Some of the great places of the past, now long gone, served truly great food and weren't really all that expensive.  Scandia, once a Hollywood fixture, where the waiters (and they were serious about being waiters, all male, all older than the norm) wore long white aprons high on their chests as one used to see French waiters in old movies, served wonderful food and at very reasonable prices. 

They served some lobster dishes that I have never found equaled elsewhere. 

The first time I went there for dinner was after seeing How The West Was Won at the Cinerama dome in 1962. 

I don't mind the occasional "experimental" food as an appetiser or whatever they call it now, but I do like real food for my meal.

I like funky places too.

There used to be a place in Las Vegas called the Green Shack and it was really a shack.  I think it had been there since the '30s when Boulder/Hoover dam was being built.  It closed several years ago but whenever I went there for a dog show, my friends and I always made a point of having at least one meal there.  The fried chicken was extraordinary.  They also served wonderful biscuits and a bread pudding that was out of this world.

The floor was uneven, the walls had interesting cracks and there were historical photos stuck everywhere.  The mayor and most of the city council as well as a lot of police officers were regular customers as were some of the older Las Vegas characters, all now long gone. 

I remember when El Pollo Loco was one walk-up stand on Alvarado in L.A. and whenever I had to drive into L.A. from the valley, where I lived at the time, I would go and stand in line for a bag of the chicken and a stack of the tortillas an a cup of the coarsly chopped fresh salsa. (I don't like the salsa they have now, it is nothing like the original.  It was cheap and very, very good.)  I think it has lost something in the mass merchandising but still turns out a fairly tasty chicken.

I also loved a barbecue stand that I think is still on Victory Blvd., in Glendale, just south of the Burbank/Glendale city limits and has been there for many, many years. 

People are drawn into the place by the aroma drifting into the street and many times I saw someone make a U-turn after driving by and getting a noseful of the wonderful smells.  I haven't been over that way for years but when I lived on Riverside Drive, back in the 60s, it was a frequent stop.  Again, the stuff was inexpensive but terrific.

←

Wow! You took me back. I used to go to the Scandia back in the 60's when I lived in LA. I didn't even realize it was a chain. We also went to the Cock and Bull and Le Petite Jean for special ocassions.

No Ruth Christ here, we're stuck with Chili's, Friday's, Papadeaux and the like. We do have lots of good shack type places including The Dog House, Sugars BBQ, and Callies Cajun who serves great cajun out the window of a blue RV on the side of the road in Santa Fe. Long live the little guy!

[andiesenji]

Scandia wasn't a chain restaurant. I was just talking about some of the great places of the past where you got exceptional quality for amazing prices.

Chasen's chili for instance, which you could have while watching real Hollywood "stars", was extremely reasonable and you got one of those neat little individual bread loaves on its own little wood cutting board with it.

I'm very familiar with the Cock and Bull, we used to take guests there for dinner before a film at the Egyptian. I don't remember if I ever had a meal at Le Petite Jean

In the 60s, when I lived in Glendale and Burbank my husband and I had house accounts at The Smoke House, Sportsmen's Lodge, the Tam'O Shanter and Sorrentino's in Toluca Lake, Trader Vic's and the Dresden Room in Hollywood. We used to see Bob Hope in Sorrentino's quite often as it was just 4 blocks from his house.

We had to do a lot of entertaining and this was before credit cards - I don't recall exactly when Carte Blanche came out but having a house account was much easier than carrying a lot of cash.

We also trekked down to the beach cities to Tony's On The Pier (the old one with the rickety outside stairs), the Warehouse and Latitude 20. And of course we had to make one visit every month to Kelbo's, just for the ribs.

I can't remember that any of those places were so expensive they were out of reach of ordinary folks.

A far cry from today when all of the high end places are totally out of reach unless one is willing to take out a loan.

Even the Coconut Grove wasn't a bank breaker in the early 60s.

[Grub]

Quick question: Does the term "Foodie" primarily mean people who enjoy eating food, as opposed to cooking food?

[The Old Foodie]

Quick question: Does the term "Foodie" primarily mean people who enjoy eating food, as opposed to cooking food?

←

I know there are such people - but I always find it difficult to understand how someone can love food, but not be interested in cooking.

The original "Official Foodie Handbook" (mine is a 1985 ed) by Ann Barr and Paul Levy says "Foodies consider food to be an art, on level with painting or drama" and "The way you tell a Foodie" is by listening. The mouth will declare its passion. To overhear a Foodie talk to another Foodie is like overhearing lovers ... "